Pelton -> I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/4/2011 11:20:51 PM)

Game now is following this general outline.

1941 Russians evac armament pts, factorys and run east from Tula south. The only real fighting taking plase on about 1/3 of the map from Tula north. Some would say that they are forsed to run because of HQ build-ups, but even with HQ build-up being 100% removed. The Russian player does not have to fight forward so therefor will not. With or without HQ build ups there is no reason for the russian player to fight forward, its all risk no reward. He only risks losing units for nothing to gain in return. The Germans are tied to railheads so as the Russian player the smart thing to do is evac production and withdraw. 100% not historical. Russian loses under current rules 1.05 are below average 0 to 2.75 million average loses 2.75 to 3 million above average 3 to 3.25

Far below historical for the above reasons.

1941/1942 Blizzard Germans run west. Here again the game for the German player is not getting units captured and keeping morale as high as possible. There is no reason to fight forward or keep manpower centers, because population migrates when a city is captured and grows back. So a smart German player simply runs west. There is no reason to risk fighting forward.All risk no reward. Again loses to German army is far below historical on average.

1942 Summer Russians withdraw east. Again no reward for fighting forward only risk. All risk no reward.

1943 Stalemate both sides have 3 to 6 layers of trenchs built and very large armys. German army can reach 4+ million.

1944/45 Germans try to hang on.

I am sure this is not what 2 by 3 was tring for when they started designing game.

The War in The East was a bitter fight with both sides fighting tooth and nail for every inch of land unlike what wite 1.05 has become.

I am not pointing fingers at Russian or German players at all. We all play to whatever rule sets we are given and change our tactics as the rule sets have changed over the last yr. Every game we play is based on risk and reward. There is no real reason to fight. This has been a consern of the player base from release.

I am all for giving up HQ-build ups if the game would have a more of a historical feel to it.

The game has become more of cat and mouse(1/3), stalemate (1/3), breaking German army (1/3).

I am not sure anything can be done to change this cookie cutter template we as players have basicly been forsed to conform to based on the present rules sets.

Pelton

Mehring -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/4/2011 11:30:15 PM)

German production should be tied to their use of captured resources, giving an historical incentive to take and hold ground.

Various means of reducing Russian operational and strategic mobility have been discussed in other threads, often centred around leadership, HQ functions and logistics.

Pelton -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 12:18:31 AM)

Basicly because 1.05 is what we will all have to live with for a long long while unless a player puts in the time and can edit a game that will be more of an interesting 41-42.

Game balance as far as when things will end is probably not far off 45ish all things being equal, but the game lacks a historical feel as far as the struggle that happened during 1941 through 1942.

I be open to removing Lvov pocket, HQ build ups ect ect.

The game just has a chicken little feel to it during 41 and 42.

There is not reason to fight for anything until late 43. We fight against time.

Pelton

TulliusDetritus -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 2:20:32 AM)

Pelton, not saying what you say is wrong (you might be right), but I would really like to know how you can fight, especially in the south.

Listen up, what's the standard offensive CV of a German division? 12? 13? 14? The standard offensive CV of a Soviet rifle division is 1. A miserable ANT. How in the world are you expecting a fight? This is a bloody MASSACRE! It's like expecting Stan Lauren to fight toe-to-toe with Muhammad Ali! Can't you see that? Are you that blind?

All you can do is harass, infiltrate, and sometimes, when you're lucky mass your forces and defeat a lone German unit. Forget about resisting too, as German infantry will vaporize everything. And on top of that, utter mobile units that will attack your flanks and surround dozens of your worthless units... Game over.

You want a fight? Give me (in 1941) Soviet Rifle Divisions with offensive CVs minimum 6 and decent defensive CVs and I guarantee you the fight you are looking for. Anywhere, anytime you want.

Klydon -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 2:30:46 AM)

I don't think he is blaming any Russian who retreats like a mad man TD, but I think Pelton has pretty much nailed the feel the game has right now and that is both sides have the track shoes on for essentially the first 2 years of the war. What spot of the board in Russia does either side feel like they have their backs to the wall and can't retreat from? Maybe Baku for the Russians?

TulliusDetritus -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 2:40:38 AM)

Klydon, and he is possibly right. The thing is (with Soviet offensive CVs = 1, the ants), the Blitzkrieg is more or less simulated (ok, Leningrad falls, etc. etc.). And this with no fight... So if there was a REAL fight (Stan Laurel vs Muhammad Ali aka not one step back) the Red army would simply be utterly destroyed, annihilated. The Blitzkrieg would not be simulated, it would be surpassed. A lot.

Maybe some tuning is needed (and that's perhaps what Pelton wants). We could have figthing Soviets but the Germans should prevail the same. But this mega fight will not be possible as long as the fight is a mere massacre: CVs = 1 [;)]

Pelton -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 2:44:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Pelton, not saying what you say is wrong (you might be right), but I would really like to know how you can fight, especially in the south.

Listen up, what's the standard offensive CV of a German division? 12? 13? 14? The standard offensive CV of a Soviet rifle division is 1. A miserable ANT. How in the world are you expecting a fight? This is a bloody MASSACRE! It's like expecting Stan Lauren to fight toe-to-toe with Muhammad Ali! Can't you see that? Are you that blind?

All you can do is harass, infiltrate, and sometimes, when you're lucky mass your forces and defeat a lone German unit. Forget about resisting too, as German infantry will vaporize everything. And on top of that, utter mobile units that will attack your flanks and surround dozens of your worthless units... Game over.

You want a fight? Give me (in 1941) Soviet Rifle Divisions with offensive CVs minimum 6 and decent defensive CVs and I guarantee you the fight you are looking for. Anywhere, anytime you want.

I very much see your poiint of view and would 100% do what most Russian players are doing. Its the box we have all been herded into.

I very much like the game and can only guess at how much hard work went into what we have now, but would like it to be better at some point.

I will be playing until witw is released for sure and probably after, just not 4 games at a time heheeh. 1 game at a time at that point will be enough.

Pelton

fbs -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 3:04:26 AM)

Simple enough solution... instead of one Advantage % value, provide two - one for the beginning of the scenario, another for the end, and make the game calculate intermediate values as the scenario progresses.

That way one can give a higher advantage for the Soviets at the beginning, and a higher advantage for the Germans at the end, and balance the game whatever way the players want in order to make the game more entertaining for both.

It's just a matter of game balance. Any complex game has exactly the same challenge -- and that's the reason why big games spend years in play-testing before releasing to public.

Baelfiin -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 3:20:39 AM)

I would agree that the game is what you make of it in '42. As the germans you either have the guts to take a shot in '42 and bust the russian army, or you can play defense and be conservative. I think that in '43 the russians have a chance to get the ball rolling their way, but not untill '44 are they going to be pushing big time. I think the game does a great job in creating a lot of tension for both sides in '42. Both sides have to decide on where and what to commit. Besides the busted air system, (no offense devs) from playing both sides I think the game is pretty close.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 3:21:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

I very much see your poiint of view and would 100% do what most Russian players are doing. Its the box we have all been herded into.

Now yes I see your point. And yes, it is a very valid one [:)] In fact, I would like to fight, as I think the game would be more interesting. I agree here. But with CVs = 1, it's just er, a nonsense, something only a lunatic would do... I stick to my Stan Laurel analogy as it clearly describes the REAL situation.

Marquo -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 3:30:09 AM)

"There is no real reason to fight. This has been a consern of the player base from release."

No fight after 41' = Axis victory, so there has to be a fight or the Soviets lose.

Marquo

JAMiAM -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 3:42:59 AM)

When one is up to their ears in alligators, it is difficult to remember that their initial task was to drain the swamp.

I think this sums up the case of players who are wondering "why are we fighting" as well as the original antagonists. The Nazis may have had some sort of overarching sociopolitical goal when they crossed the border in 1941. However, what that was went out the window very shortly afterwards, when Germany and the Soviet Union were locked into a war of survival - one that would only end with the unconditional surrender of the other.

In game terms, the victory of one or the other is loosely tied to valuations of the geography of the map. Barring a runaway victory by the Axis (sudden death) the game will be decided by the benchmark set by the developers at the end of the game. Like our historical counterparts, why we fight quickly devolves into the only real metric - to survive, and therefore "win".

randallw -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 8:48:39 AM)

Provided the Soviet player survives 1942-1943 the Soviet Army will grow to something large. The events of '42-'43 will determine whether the army reaches about 6 million men, 8 million, or something in between. The Axis player doesn't care what the exact number is; he decides it's too big whatever it may be, so he determines that 'nothing' in '42 or '43 even matters.

Bletchley_Geek -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 10:09:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM When one is up to their ears in alligators, it is difficult to remember that their initial task was to drain the swamp.

I think this sums up the case of players who are wondering "why are we fighting" as well as the original antagonists. The Nazis may have had some sort of overarching sociopolitical goal when they crossed the border in 1941. However, what that was went out the window very shortly afterwards, when Germany and the Soviet Union were locked into a war of survival - one that would only end with the unconditional surrender of the other.

In game terms, the victory of one or the other is loosely tied to valuations of the geography of the map. Barring a runaway victory by the Axis (sudden death) the game will be decided by the benchmark set by the developers at the end of the game. Like our historical counterparts, why we fight quickly devolves into the only real metric - to survive, and therefore "win".

BigAnorak -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 10:14:38 AM)

@Pelton

I believe we are still a long way from seeing any "template" of play as too few 1.05 AARs have got through winter 42/43, when historically the strategic initiative moved from Axis to SU. I am not seeing the "cookie cutter template" that you are seeing, as the two games I am playing are following completely different paths due to the 4 different strategies each side is using in each game.

The patterns we have seen to date have been distorted by the many iterations of rule changes and bug fixes that have occurred since release. The main distorting factor in all players' gameplay is hindsight. Unless players agree beforehand to play "War in the East - the role-playing game" and follow a script that deliberately causes both sides to lose the " requisite" numbers of casualties, and to deliberately expose armies to encirclement, how can a game conform to any pattern?

So seen through the lens of hindsight, we are bound to see a different alternate history, and this is indeed the design intention as stated on page 18 of the manual:

"Gary Grigsby’s War in the East is a turn based simulation of the Eastern Front in World War Two from June 1941 to September 1945. As the Axis or Soviet player, you take the role of the military High Command to use the forces available to you to execute the conflict at the strategic and operational levels of war. The game is an “Alternate History Creator” that focuses on simulating the logistic and command and control problems that the historical commanders on the Eastern Front had to deal with. It will allow players to explore many of the strategic and operational “What ifs” that have been discussed by historians and armchair strategists for many years. As such, economic and research based “what ifs” are not the focus."

So to answer the question in the OP, yes this is what 2by3 started out to design. It is down to us, the players, to determine how "alternate" we want our history to be, and to debate how well or otherwise the game does simulate the logistic and command and control problems faced by the historical commanders.

Would the game be better without the stalemate period? Maybe, but it is also the period in which the Axis can "win" if they are able to lengthen the period of time it takes for the Red Army to turn into an attritional juggernaut capable of destroying the Axis.

The main logistic and C&C problem that the game attempts to simulate is the historical fact that the Axis based all their logistics, production and replacements for Barbarossa on a 6 month blitzkrieg and therefore had to adapt their economy to "Total War" (They did not achieve a Total War economy until 1944 when it was too late)when Barbarossa failed.

When they failed to knock the USSR out in that 6 month window, everything that happened from month 7 onwards had not been planned or prepared for, and I think is reflected in history and in the game. The design specifically excludes research and economic what ifs, so we will indeed be relying on the modder community to produce a "better prepared Axis" variant.

Mehring -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 10:25:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Basicly because 1.05 is what we will all have to live with for a long long while unless a player puts in the time and can edit a game that will be more of an interesting 41-42.

Game balance as far as when things will end is probably not far off 45ish all things being equal, but the game lacks a historical feel as far as the struggle that happened during 1941 through 1942.

Pelton

Yes, I think this is what we'll have to live with until a better game comes along or this one is comprehensively overhauled. After all the discussion, isn't that a given?

We may disagree on the finer points but I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with what you're saying. In the long run I don't much care for a game that gets an historical result by ahistorical means. At the extreme of that continuum you might as well say all Axis units surrender in May 1945, whatever the state of play. I'm just wary of putting pressure on the devs to implement short quick fixes that only create new problems, when they could be spending their time evaluating and changing the game where it's needed, at its core. Whether or not they'll do so, who knows, either way, I've had my moneys worth.

RCH -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 3:43:08 PM)

I am encouraged by the changes made to the game.

Why are we fighting? Isn't that what a lot of the German generals were wondering. Didn't they want to sit back a bit and enjoy the fruits of their successes? The game isn't going to be played historically. Who is going to throw away the 6th army? If the game was to be played historically, then yes, I would want historical results.

Didn't the Russians frustrate Napoleon by running? Why cannot the Russian player run (though there has to be consequences to just flat out running, like losing industry and manpower).

I think Hitler threw away any chance for victory. Stalin was only saved from defeat by the expanse of Russia, his ability to replace losses, and the American support he received; and not so much by his incompetence. The Germans in early WW2 proved many nations incompetent.

I believe a different type of war is possible if Stalin and Hitler are taken out of the picture; and that is why I will be playing this game.

el hefe -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 3:51:19 PM)

This is a typical design issue with wargames. The player's only concern is to win the game just like a chess match. He doesn't have to worry or stress out about refugees, political pressures, economical or societal issues. The player doesn't have to worry about the fate of his home town or his family, promotion possibilities, possibilities for being executed for poor performance, etc. In short, the game is played in a vacuum, insulated from all of these historical concerns. The only way to alleviate that is to introduce artbitrary rules in which you then start to infringe upon the "fun" factor. Since this is ultimately a game that has to sell copies based on entainment value, the deisgners have to make some concessions. In saying that, I do think there are some areas which could be improved upon that could add some more risk/reward opportunities.

Trey

veji1 -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 4:01:25 PM)

From a spectator's point of view, and to support TD's remark on the CV value of 1 of Soviet divisions, I would really like to see significantly stronger soviet forces in 41 and 42, but with significantly less C&C and movements capabilities... 3 soviet divisions should be able to inflict pain on an isolated spearhead, and many more counterattacks should be possible and painful for the Germans.

Ideally I would like to see a test where there is no HQ build-ups, stronger soviet units (say two or three times stronger), pitiful and quite random soviet movement abilities, but with a low cost of attacks in terms of MPs.. Basically put the soviet player in a position where his units are often too slow to retreat east, so are likely to die, but can really hurt german units doing so... And also make surrounded units a tad stronger so that clearing a pocket requires a minimum of fight, ie good german divisions, not just romanians...And let's see what happens.

Soviet movement and C&C impairments would gradually, and somewhat randomly, decrease until mid42.

pzgndr -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 4:14:36 PM)

quote:

All risk no reward.

A solution to this dilemma for WITE and similar Russian Front games is to provide victory points or something for major cities and objectives and score players on how well they perform versus historical results. That way both players have strong incentive to perform better than history, throughout the entire war and not just focused on the endgame victory conditions. But, this scoring needs to happen periodically at say end of each year, with either just a result posted for players' information (for them to decide to end or continue the game) or some threshold for declaring a victory and ending the game.

Alternatively, house rules can be established to do the same thing. (Hint.) The old Avalon Hill boardgame The Russian campaign had a nice set of Sudden Death Victory Conditions:

quote:

24.3 SUDDEN DEATH VICTORY CONDITIONS: Before the start of the game, each player must secretly write down an objective (city or oil well) for each year from 1942 through 1945—a total of four objectives for each player. At the start of the first clear weather turn of each year, each player reveals his objective for that year. A player wins IMMEDIATELY if at that point he controls both his own objective and his opponent's objective for that year.

24.4 If neither player controls both objectives, then there is no winner at that point and the game continues to the next year.

24.5 Each player must choose each year's objective from a list of possible objectives for that year. The Axis player must choose his 1942 objective from the Axis 1942 list of objectives, and the Russian player must choose his 1942 objective from the listed Russian 1942 objectives, etc.

24.6 In 1942, the Axis player may choose either Dnepropetrovsk, Bryansk or Leningrad. For 1943 he must choose either Leningrad, Kharkov or the oil well at PP13. For 1944 he must choose Sevastopol, Riga or Kiev. For 1945 he must choose Warsaw, Lwow—or he may choose as his objective eliminating the Stalin counter.

24.7 For 1942, the Russian must choose either Sevastopol, Kalinin or Kharkov for his objective. For 1943, he must choose Voronezh, Moscow or Stalingrad. For 1944, he must choose Leningrad, Rostov or Kursk. For 1945 he must choose Bucharest, Berlin—or he may choose to eliminate the Hitler counter as his objective.

24.8 If neither player has won by the second clear weather turn in 1945, use the Campaign Victory Conditions (24.1 above) to determine a winner—or a draw.

Alternatively, the Russian Front boardgame had a Victory Points Chart for checking victory level during every May and November Turn:

quote:

16.1.2 VICTORY LEVELS: After adjustment, if the victory level unit points to “0”, the game so far is a “tie”, otherwise check the “Victory Levels” columns on the VICTORY POINTS CHART, cross-gridding the current victory points shown on the CURRENT VICTORY LEVEL CHART with the current date. The letter found shows the level of victory, as follows: D: Decisive victory for the side showing “+” victory points. The game is over and automatically ends at this point. M: Marginal victory for the side showing “+” victory points. That side has an edge, but the outcome could still be reversed. The result can be accepted by mutual player agreement and the game can be ended at this point, or play can continue for another six-month period (unless this is Turn 42, and the game must end with a marginal victory result). T: Tie. No one is winning, even though one side has some victory points. Like a marginal victory, the game may be ended here or continued (unless it is Turn 42). 16.1.3 HISTORIC VICTORY LEVELS: If desired, check the “HIS” column on the VICTORY POINTS CHART to see the victory points of the actual campaign (won decisively by the Soviet Union by May, 1944).

Point is, players do not have to reinvent the wheel here and can (should?) implement some modest house rules challenging both players to perform better than history all along the way.

Mike29 -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 4:18:39 PM)

We were thinking about some kind of penalties for loosing too much territory (running too fast and without order). It should be required to fight, at least for points of political importance, like Kiev for example. We lost half a million to hold Kiev as long as possible. But should be rewards as well (in manpower, new divisions, land-lease etc.) I understand this not easy to implement and not broke the balance.

The most easy additional penalty is historical - faster execution of commanders (of fronts for example).

sajer -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 4:20:36 PM)

I have been playing games for a very long time - going back to board games. I think what is being discussed here is very important. It hits right at the core of what is wrong with large strategic computer based simulations. As it always happens, players at some point discover that by playing any side that they can "game" the system. This is based on rigid rules of what really happened.

This where all creators of theatre-wide simulations go horribly wrong in their thinking.

I think the post by Big Anorak hits the nails on the head - right from the manual:

quote:

The game is an “Alternate History Creator” that focuses on simulating the logistic and command and control problems that the historical commanders on the Eastern Front had to deal with. It will allow players to explore many of the strategic and operational “What ifs” that have been discussed by historians and armchair strategists for many years. As such, economic and research based “what ifs” are not the focus."

First of all it is NOT an alternate history creator - it is to a very small degree - but no matter what the Axis does, unless he gets an auto-victory - he is basically screwed. The Soviets will build up and eventually overrun him.

This is why no games are running (human to human) past early 1942.

Also by not having the what-if's imbedded in the game it does not take into consideration the most important part of the human vs human or human vs AI overall strategy - there is too much rigidity in the game. You KNOW that the Germans will have this much production in this year or that. You KNOW what replacments or units will be transferred to the front and when. You KNOW that the SU will eventually build into this big juggernaut that is unstoppable starting in the late summer of '42 or early '43.

I recently wrote a long post about this exact problem. It was blown off by a few people than got thrown into the trash of other posts - and lost.

I introduced the idea of creating a simple creation of out of theatre (and in) "what-if's". I made the mistake of listing ten or twenty of them. It was then shot down by certain posters, saying that "Ohhh.. that would have never happened". You see that was never my point. The idea put forth is WHAT IF ONE OR MORE OF THEM DID!! And they were always questionable to happen till the end of the war (i.e. simulation).

These variables would keep players playing the game to the end to my estimation.

The most important part of a strategy simulation that should be implemented is the "fog of war". I always play my games with it fully implemented. The problem is that there is not enough of a fog of war. Do you really think that the Soviets or even the Germans had the capability to "see" through the eyes of recon planes "everything" that was going on at the front - through hundreds of recon sorties. It's almost as if the Soviets and Germans had spy sattelites for pete's sake.

You know why the Ardennes Offensive (or Battle of the Bulge, if you wish) was a surprise to the Americans? Hell, they had plenty of recon planes, didn't they? It was because of the art of deception. Complete radio silence, hiding tanks in forests, moving units at night. A pretty good job by the Germans, I might say. To hide 26 Divisions and all that armor and to attack the Allies with total surprise.

I remember reading a book on the Battle of Kursk - and Zhukov heaviliy fortified his flanks and eventually defeated the massive attacks on his northern and southern flanks by SS panzers armies - bacause he said - that is what I would have done.

Also I am reminded by Hitler's quote on the Soviet Army: "All you have to do is kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down".

Would he would have attempted the invasion if he had known that the Soviets would get American/British help via the Murmansk port? Or had the capacity to "move" factories east behind the Urals?

I'm getting away now from my main point. I also don't want to bore you with hundreds of "what-if's". But hopefully you get my drift.

The main thing wrong with big intricate simulations like this if that we all plunk down $60 to $80 because are intrigued by the thought of a huge intricate model of the greatest battle ever fought - the Russo-German war in the East. It is fun for awhile, but then a strategy arises from constant play by smart players to "game" the system. I am not blaming them at all. They after all find the flaws in the game - as to almost make it unplayable.

In the end I am only saying that if this game could be modeled to include historical variants it would keep the players- playing the game to the bitter end. Also it would give the players the ultimate satisfaction - "FUN".

But, companies spew out these games, like War in the Pacific (where you just move pieces around a board for MONTHS - knowing the U.S. will win the end.) Then moving on from WiTe ( after getting thier money) to designing WiTw - where again they will again get paid. With the deep design flaw is still present. After you slap down big cash for War in the West - players will eventually find a way to "game" that computer simulation. But by then they will be on to their next project..and so on..and so on.....

The thing is you don't really "fix" a game by creating dozens of patches. You don't stop the blood from severed arm with a band-aid (I know what that is all about - because I have seen it up close). You have to fix the root problem. Until that is done - I will keep my money in my pocket.

You can poo-poo my post - but in my heart and in my opinion I know I'm right.

Keep up the good fight men!

Franklin Nimitz -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 4:38:53 PM)

I think tying National Morale to VP (hence city occupation) levels together would give both sides an incentive to defend territory. Have the loss of a city result in a random chance to lose National Morale depending on how big the city is. Scrap the fixed schedule of NM changes. You can gain NM by taking cities as well. I think this has a common sense historical basis as well. It's very difficult IRL to keep up the morale of a retreating army. It doesn't matter here right now.

Pelton -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 4:55:19 PM)

Probably the only way to really change things as the German will be when The War in Europe is done. Which will be after WitW and WitS are finished.

I think we will be in the same "box" as we are with wite with the next 2 games.

Only when as the Axis you can build and attack when you want can you truely be out of the box.

This will add layers upon layers to a massive game, where truely no 2 games will be anything alike.

Pelton

gradenko_2000 -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 5:14:13 PM)

I don't think it's about getting the Soviet player to fight forward by giving him units powerful enough to make a dent against the Panzers. Rather, it's about making the Soviet hexes valuable enough that the Soviet player HAS to fight forward.

I mean, Tullius is right: No sane Soviet player would dare attack the Germans with CVs of 1 or 2, but this attitude has to tempered with A.) the historical Soviets attacked anyway and B.) no sane Soviet general would have run away as far as we currently see. In every game of scale and of this setting, the Soviet player always runs away as far and as fast as he's allowed because he knows it's the right thing to do and because the rules let him.

Giving the Soviet player "decent" units in 1941 would try to address the former, by making a solid forward defence a feasible option, but it might not be all that realistic. Giving the Soviet player "sudden death" victory conditions would then address the latter, by forcing him to trade units for time, instead of space for time.

Of course, this may go against the idea of a game giving you "complete freedom" from political considerations and just focus on the business of making war, but the game has made quite a few concessions in that department anyway, such as locked German production, locked German formation-creation, locked initial deployment, random leader re-assignment, etc.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 5:27:33 PM)

I personally don't think stronger Soviets would be a solution. In fact I have no idea about the ideal solution [:)] But one thing I know: "not one step back" (VPs, hold x place, use the euphemism you like) is absurd when your fighter is Stan Laurel and the other guy is a massive, almost invulnerable fighter. It's pure common sense. And every Soviet player has instinctively understood this.

veji1 -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 5:29:19 PM)

The idea isn't just to give the Soviets better units, is to also emulate poor C&C . quite a few soviet units fought very hard at the divisional or corps level, but the overall coordination was a disaster. By for example having a mechanism that double or triples the cost of movement randomly for the different soviet armies, one would get this messy situation. coupled that with better units (which would be more historical) and you would get soviet players trying to make better use of their units because they don't know if they can move bakc fast enough anyway.. just an idea.

alfonso -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 5:45:38 PM)

I have been reading in the last years several books on the Eastern Front showing how dumbasses Stalin and Hitler were for not ordering timely retreats, only to find here that I should be rewarded “political victory points” by following their example...

Mehring -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 9:10:10 PM)

Part of the issue with 1941 Russians, and it's one touched on implicitly in the no flank attack bonus discussions, is that there is inadequate need in WitE, to flank or encircle an enemy. It's as true for the Germans in 1941 as for the Russians later, you can get by just fine by grinding forward in the historically most expensive and wasteful way, frontal attacks. The omnidirectional forts and units make breakthroughs little more than a habit from history which is fun to exercise but with quite limited practical benefit in the game. Add to that the return as shells of most lost units from 1941 and there's inadequate incentive for the Germans to behave historically in 1941, either.

I notice that when you stack units, their individual defensive CVs do not add up as in most counter games, but apparently multiply. I like this. Two divisions on a 10 mile front will be more than twice as difficult to attack than just one. But the corollary for this mechanism, the flank attack bonus to reflect the stretching of a defence, is absent.

Introducing flanking rules and unit/fort facing would allow for higher basic CVs and give another opportunity for command skills to enter the game as generals use their initiative, or not, to respond to flanking threats. It's another mechanism to promote historical play.

JAMiAM -> RE: I this what 2 by 3 started out to design back 5+ yrs ago? (12/5/2011 9:17:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I notice that when you stack units, their individual defensive CVs do not add up as in most counter games, but apparently multiply. I like this. Two divisions on a 10 mile front will be more than twice as difficult to attack than just one.

I think that you're just confusing the rounding effect. The CVs for each unit are rounded down, so if you choose a couple of rounded down 1 CV units, then stack them, you may very well get a higher number for the summed CVs of the stack. In cases of adjusted CVs, from terrain, and fortification levels, this effect is even more pronounced.